(no subject)

[tinyjo]

Alex and I were discussing something only tangentially related recently when I realised that the UK is the only country I can think of which has kind of evolved a democracy in a fairly undramatic and very gradual fashion. All the other countries about who's governmental history I know have either started as more or less democracies (e.g. America), had revolutions (e.g. France) or been pushed into it by other powers (e.g. India). I'm sure there must be others though - some of the Nordic states perhaps? Enlighten me, friends list.

Comments

[white_hart]

Although we did cut our monarch's head off once, don't forget...

This is something I've noticed before. I think it's all to do with the relative status of the middle classes and the fact that the bourgeoisie gained power far more easily in a trading economy like England's rather than a predominantly agricultural society like France. Also, the power of the Church in the countries that remained Catholic held the bourgeoisie down, whereas i think the Protestant church has historically had more scope for self-improvement.

I suspect that as well as the Scandinavian countries, a lot of the German states made relatively easy progress towards democratic or partially-democratic societies. Of course, the unification process there is a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

We did cut Charles's head off but in a lot of ways the Civil War was fought to prevent the King reclaiming powers from Parliment - parliament temporarily gaining more power was kind of a side effect. And of course with the restoration, that's what the net effect was - the attempt by the Royal Family to regain full control failed and constitutional monarchy continues.

I *think* that the German states were mostly run by Princes/Electors (like George I, who was elector of Hanover) before unification under the Kaiser and were fairly autocratic in character. I don't think German democracy begins until the end of the First World War.

You're definitely right about social mobility though - I remember learning in history A-level that at the start of the 19th century there was a lot of fear that England would follow the French example but it didn't that that's generally put down to the opportunities for entrepreneurship, self improvement etc in England at the time.

[white_hart]

Well, there has been an English parliament in existence in some form or another since 12-something and Simon de Montfort, although the social composition has changed hugely over the centuries. So there's always been some tradition of non-absolute monarchy (from what I recall Anglo-Saxon traditions tended to involve decisions made by council, so I suspect there was inbuilt resistance to Norman autocracy), which goes right back to Magna Carta and the power of the barons.

The French and Russian revolutions were led by middle-class intellectuals. Lawyers, journalists, doctors, teachers. The anciens regimes in those countries restricted the freedom of the middle classes so much that educated people with some money/property felt compelled to rise up against the system. Without them the peasant uprisings would have been fairly rapidly squelched. Whereas, if you read Jane Austen, who is fairly contemporaneous with the French Revolution, you can see how much the professional classes were integrated with the gentry - there's little real distinction between the baronet, the clergyman and the doctor, and often the titled nobility were the poorer. The British bourgeoisie were just too comfortable to want to rock the boat.

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

We also had what was essentially an anti-Catholic revolution in 1688, which was neither as glorious or as bloodless as people make out. It was all very precarious for a good hundred years after that.

The position of the British "constitution" has always been contested, if I recall. It tends to suit people to appeal to something which has "always been there" even if it hasn't, and there's been a lot more fighting and stuff involved than it's suited people to admit to, because they want to be able to appeal to an ancient constitution, guardian of liberty, &c.

I really ought to be able to write better about that, oughtn't I? :$

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

I'm never sure if it's a misonmer to call that a revolution becuase it's more a coup really. We changed one branch of the ruling family for another but the method of government was largely un-affected.

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

It probably is - I don't deny that at all. Just saying it wasn't as bloodless as people have historically made out, is all :-)

BTW

[dotty.livejournal.com]

Are you French? Just curious...

Re: BTW

[white_hart]

If you meant me, no. Did I sound as if I were?

Re: BTW

[dotty.livejournal.com]

Sort of. Vaguely, anyway. Sorry, I was reading the whole discussion and all...

Re: BTW

[white_hart]

Just somewhat obessed with the French Revolution, is all. I blame it on reading The Scarlet Pimpernel at too impressionable an age...

Re: BTW

[dotty.livejournal.com]

That would do it, yes. We tend to be brainwashed with the Revolution for years in secondary school and high school. It never ends, really. Lucky I escaped to UK then, though I should have never started with Sheffield as a first destination, way too bleak.